alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Diane Keenan, Respondent, v Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp. and Gotham Building Maintenance Corp. appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered July 25, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $2,150,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and a new trial is granted on the issue of damages only, unless within 20 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, the plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages to the principal sum of $750,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff was assaulted and robbed in the elevator of her apartment building, which is owned and operated by the defendant Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp. (hereinafter Dayton). She subsequently commenced this action claiming, *inter alia,*that the defendants Dayton and Gotham Building Maintenance Corp. (hereinafter Gotham), breached their duty to maintain the building in a safe condition. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff the sum of $2,150,000.

On appeal, the appellants contend, *inter alia,*that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence and that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence adduced at the trial. The appellants further argue that the award of damages was excessive and materially deviates from what should be considered fair and reasonable compensation.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, there was more than ample evidence adduced at the trial from which the jury could *863have concluded that both Dayton and Gotham were negligent in the discharge of their respective duties to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Specifically, we find that a rational jury could have concluded from the evidence of criminal activity in the area, that a crime of the type which occurred at bar was foreseeable, and that the appellants failed in their obligation to take reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risks presented *(see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507, 519-520; *cf, Ianelli v Powers,*114 AD2d 157).

Upon a review of the record, however, we conclude that the award of damages was excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 

### 2023 KW 0614 VERSUS 

### KENNY WAYNE VEAL 

### SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

In Re: 

### Kenny Wayne Veal, 

## applying for supervisory writs, 32nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, No. 702235.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., 

### CHUTZ AND LANIER, Ji.

WRIT DENIED. The application for postconviction was filed untimely. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930. 8(A); State v. Veal, 

### 2019-0323 ( La. 

### App. lst Cir. 

### 9/27/ 19), 2019 WL 

### 4731974, writ denied, 

### 2019-01786 ( La. 

### 1/ 14/20), 291 So. 3d 685; State v. Brumfield, 

### 2009-1084 ( La. 

### 9/2/09), 16 So. 3d 1161, 1162 ( per curiam) ( Where the 

### district court " addresses an otherwise time

### barred application on the merits, an appellate 

### court may assert the time limits 

## imposed by art. 930. 8(A) as a basis 

## for denying relief in accord with 

### clearly expressed 

### legislative intent to 

## limit collateral attacksonfinal convictions."). JMG WRC WIL
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

  As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate 
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry 
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
  (The messages received today are printed at the end of the Senate 
proceedings.)

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             779,359
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      323,746
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        508,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,632,620
<PP&E>                                             281,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,656,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              699,364
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,633
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,952,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,656,946
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   302,388
<CGS>                                              195,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      195,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,393,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  73,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,949,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,949,528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        ($.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
# C_2021217EN.01000302.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — H. A. v État belge

(Case C-194/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 27 - Remedy - Whether account should be taken of circumstances subsequent to the transfer decision - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 217/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in the light of recital 19 thereof, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the court or tribunal seised of an action for annulment of a transfer decision may not, in the context of the examination of that action, take account of circumstances subsequent to the adoption of that decision which are decisive for the correct application of that regulation, unless that legislation provides for a specific remedy entailing an ex nunc examination of the situation of the person concerned, the results of which are binding on the competent authorities, a remedy which may be exercised after such circumstances have arisen and which, in particular, is not made conditional on the deprivation of that person’s liberty or on the fact that implementation of that decision is imminent.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# C_2021019EN.01001002.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-796/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/59/EC - Certification of train drivers - Article 3(a) - Competent national authority - Directive 2004/49/EC - Article 16(1) - Safety authority - Designation of several authorities)

(2021/C 19/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: J. Schmoll and A. Posch, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by designating as ‘competent authority’, for the purposes of Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, an authority other than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by designating as ‘competent authority’, for the purposes of Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, an authority other than the safety authority referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(a) of Directive 2007/59;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28020]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Sex Differences in AD.
    Date: February 15, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 827-3101, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#452124372c2a6b212c202230203f052b2c2d6b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="442025362d2b6a202d212331213e042a2d2c6a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28020 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2011080EN.01000201.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria)) — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

(Case C-382/08) (1)

1

(Air transport - Licence for the organisation of commercial balloon flights - Article 12 EC - Condition of residence or company seat - Administrative sanctions)

2011/C 80/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Neukirchinger

Applicant:

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich — Interpretation of Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of administrative criminal penalties, the organisation of commercial balloon flights without a national licence, the issue of which is subject to the condition that the applicant for the licence has a place of residence or registered office within the country

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 EC precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the organisation of balloon flights in that Member State and subject to administrative sanctions in the event of failure to comply with that legislation,

requires a person resident or established in another Member State, who is licensed in that second Member State to operate commercial balloon flights, to have a place of residence or company seat in the first Member State, and

obliges that person to obtain a new licence, without due account being taken of the fact that the conditions of issue are, essentially, the same as those which apply to the licence already issued to that person in the second Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

PROLINE MATERIALS, INC., a Texas 

corporation,

 Plaintiff Counter Defendant -

 Appellant,

v.

PROLINE PRODUCTS, LLC, an 

Oklahoma limited liability company,

 Defendant Counterclaimant -

 Appellee.

No. 14-6216

 (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-00156-C)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

*

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. 

P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

 

 Proline Products, LLC (Products) prevailed in litigation with Proline Materials, 

Inc. (Materials) and was awarded $110,984 in attorney fees. Materials appeals the 

attorney-fee award on several grounds. We need address only one, and reverse. 

 The district court granted the fee award under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936 (West 

2014). Products (quite correctly and admirably) makes three concessions regarding the 

application of § 936 to this case: (1) the district court’s award of attorney fees is contrary 

to this court’s holding in Specialty Beverages, LLC v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165 

(10th Cir. 2008); (2) we must follow a prior panel’s interpretation of state law “unless an 

intervening decision of the state’s highest court has resolved the issue,” Wankier v. 

Crown Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003); and (3) “[t]he Oklahoma 

Supreme Court has not spoken on the [pertinent issue] since Specialty Beverages.” Aplee. 

Br. at 18. Bound by Specialty Beverages, we therefore cannot affirm the fee award. 

 Products has two avenues still available. First, it can seek review by the en banc 

court. This opinion does not foreclose that possibility. Second, it can obtain a contrary 

decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court through certification of the issue from this 

court. In that regard, it has filed a motion requesting us to certify the issue. In our view, 

however, this is not an appropriate issue to certify because a resolution by the Oklahoma 

court may not be determinative; Materials has raised other substantial challenges to the 
3 

fee award that may require reversal of the award even if this court misinterpreted 

Oklahoma law in Specialty Beverages. 

 Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney fees and remand to the district court 

for entry of judgment in favor of Materials on the issue of attorney fees. We deny 

Products’ motion to certify, and we deny the other pending motions as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of NuWay Medical,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the three  months  ended  March 31,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated below,  hereby certifies
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NuWay Medical,  Inc. and will be retained by NuWay Medical, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND FOR PERIOD THEN
ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        $559,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,440,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,105,999
<PP&E>                                         726,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                 314,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,510,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,213,283
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,868
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,221,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,510,614
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,302,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,831,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                616,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   476,660
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        



</TABLE>